Total Quality Management (TQM)

to understand the people in the organisation, how they function and also how they can function better, and how they can work together to define and resolve, both problems and opportunities. At the end of the section, some models for managing change are displayed, where Schein seeks to give us an understanding on the differences between the traditional approach to organisation development and change, and the OD approach to this, whereas we can see that in the traditional approach the consultant or the ” outsider” only makes recommendations, while in the OD approach he or she works together with the a group to solve problems and be more effective (Ibid.). Further this can be compared to the AI model and Kotter’s eight step model, whereas one may say that some of the terms in the OD definition could be linked to Kotter’s model, while other aspects are more similar to the AI model. The long-term aspect, even the time aspect in general, is absent in both Kotter’s model and the AI model, while the aspect where the change should be led by the top management is more similar to Kotter’s model. This could also be the case with aspect like visioning and, to some degree, the learning an problem-solving processes, whereas Kotter’s model focus on finding problems and obstacles in the past, so that one may avoid these in the future, and also that the top management or a group of the top management together with the a change agent should lead the change process. Also the vision aspect is to be recognized in Kotter’s model, but maybe even more in the second model of functionalism, the ideology - visionary approach / model. However, there is some features that are more similar to the AI model, such as where they emphasize for that the work teams and the employees are the building blocks for the organisation, they want to let everybody participate in the change, and they focus on understanding how the people behave – this could be a key component to implement the change, both in the AI model and within OD, because one understand people’s emotions and may use them in a way that could make them understand the change better, with no or less resistance. Compared to the traditional models described above, one may think that the OD approach is more similar to Kotter’s eight step model, however, when one look at an overall view of the definition of OD, done by French and Bell Jr., one might get the impression of that this is more similar to the AI model, whereas human aspect, team involvement and cultural aspect are taken more into consideration.

and this change may be studied at a variety of levels (Almaraz, 1994). At an organisational level this implementation could represent a strategic move to be more competitive. And at a unit level, one can see that different units or teams are made to maintain the different goals on quality and that these units or teams are empowered through the quality paradigm. The key determinants for success, from top managers and down to the various employees, are the issue of resistance to change and the institutionalization of quality concepts, and at all levels, the successful implementation of a quality programme requires top management commitment (Ibid.). The authors hope that sampling of quality management research, both conceptual and empirical, will focus our attention on the magnitude as well as the profound relevance of organisational research possibilities within the quality management paradigm. They emphasize that such research is needed to show the relationship between quality management programmes and organisational behaviour and change – this information has great value for both those practitioners trying to implement quality programmes and also for those researchers trying to focus their effort on the most relevant issues in their organisational research (Ibid.).

The evolution and development of the quality management programmes is not typical of a traditional organisational research issue and the result is that many organisational researchers have ignored the behavioural side of the quality phenomenon. Operations researchers have provided some valuable insights into the degree of implementation of quality programmes, as well as some instrument and theory development. However, the issues of organisational behaviour (top management commitment and the impact of organisational change) receive only cursory attention in this research (Ibid.).

One can often find resistance to change when new ways of thinking and doing things occur, and this is a phenomenon often studied in organisational research. It is also ironic that this phenomenon is to be found among the organisational researchers themselves and the support for research on quality comes from a surprising source – the business community.

A second factor inhibiting research on quality is the fact that the implementation of quality programmes on an organisational level represents a paradigmatic shift, from the traditional form of management to a new a more team based leadership version. The need to work together in teams, at all levels of the organisation, including cross functional, is vital to organisational survival. Change of such kind and magnitude is not incremental, but rather a frame braking change in organisational functioning and organizing, making it both difficult to

implement and study (Ibid.).

One aspect that could make this implementation process easier could be to define the quality construct. It inhibits the research on quality, because the term quality has a multi-faced nature, where there are two cognitive definitions, based on perceptions of individuals assessing quality of a product or service, and three definitions are concrete in terms of operationalising the meaning of the quality and the ease of comparison with other organisations. The value based definition of quality is viewed in terms of cost and prices – the provision of a product or service at acceptable cost or price. The determination of value is a subjective judgement on the part of the consumer and this is the anchor of the majority of research in the service sector – exploring the gaps between perceived expected value and actual value. The last three definitions, mentioned above, are most heavily utilized in the writings of the operations management literature and quality ”gurus” such as Deming (1986), Juran (1998) and Crosby (1984). The three definitions are more specified below:

(1) User-based definition – Quality is measured by the degree to which the wants and needs of customers are satisfied.

(2) Product-based definition – Quality refers to the amount of desired attributes obtained in the product.

(3) Manufacturing-based definition – quality is measured by the percentage of scrap or rework required during the production process.

(Alamaraz, 1994, pp.8-9) Given these different definitions on quality the generalisation of research on quality is very low and whenever researchers talk about improving quality it is most likely that they refer to different aspects of quality (Ibid.).

Another aspect of the quality term is that, while quality programmes have existed in organisations for quite some time, research on quality issues has lagged far behind. The authors suggest that the implementation of quality programmes invariably leads to changes in the organisation, affecting people, tasks, technology and structure. The question is whether we can infer a causal relationship between quality management and organisational culture? What is the relationship of management to organisational change? This discussion of quality management in the context of organisational change theory is to be discussed further below in the text (Ibid.).

Total Quality Management (TQM) refers to a management process directed at establishing organized continuous process improvement activities, involving everyone in an organisation in a totally integrated effort towards improving performance at every level (Alamaraz, 1994).

There are a lot of organisations which have experienced that their survival is dependent on making major changes now, but to achieve the level of cultural change required by TQM is not an overnight process, such a change must be planned and carefully implemented. It is said that change of this magnitude and complexity is not adequately defined by traditional stage models of change, so there is a great need for more research on this matter. Earlier, change theory focused on only one organisational subsystem, such as the human and technological subsystems. However when we now have reached the twentieth century, organisations and their environment have become increasingly complex, as well as the types of changes that occur. The text implies that:”The study of TQM in organisations provides a valuable opportunity for research on the complexity of change and the chance for theory development on frame braking change” and, further it defines major organisational change as:”non-routine, non-incremental, discontinuous change which alters the overall orientation of the organisation and / or its components” (Alamaraz, 1994, pp. 10). These components depict the interconnection of people, task, technology and structure, where a major change can happen in any of these four components. The magnitude of the change will be such that all components will make some adjustments to the change, and may in fact incur major changes as a result. Again these changes will affect the culture of the organisation – the values, the beliefs, and the expectations of organisation members, and will transform the organisation. There is a great need for focusing on change theory research on the radical, transformational changes occurring in organisations and both scholars and practitioners have a need to know what the implications of such changes are, how to design and implement such changes and what leadership qualities are required for success (Ibid.).

As we have mentioned earlier, it is well known that people are, for the most part, resistant to change of any kind and this is especially true when it comes to transformational change.

There are a lot of new factors that must be included, such as fear for the unknown, habit, the possibility of economic insecurity, threats to social relationships, and failure to recognize the need for change. In these situations organisation leaders must step in to facilitate acceptance for the change (ibid.).

One can also question how the organisation looks at present situation and how it is expected to look after the change and the importance of identifying organisational parameters prior to the change is a vital aspect of the process in total. Depending on the existing culture and the degree to which a change, such as TQM, differs from that culture, an organisation may be more or less ready for such a change. It is important to create a need for change; in effect, opening up the organisational culture to be receptive to the change. This is particularly difficult when there are no apparent crises or reason for the change, but rather the long-range vision of a leader who anticipates the time it takes to implement organisational change. If the vision of a leader differs from the values and beliefs of the existing organisational culture, resistance to change is especially relevant, and this part of the process is easy to overlook in major change efforts. If the organisational culture fails to assimilate the vision and its implications, desired change will never become accepted by the organisation members, and will ultimately fail (Ibid.).

It is further important to look at the aspect of leadership when discussing transformational change, which often occur in the implementation of quality programmes. Traditional change theory focuses on the manager of the day-to day operations, while newer theories emphasize for focus on the leaders of transformational change. However, researchers have not implemented or incorporated leadership theories into their discussion (Ibid.).

Another important aspect on this matter is the commitment from the top management – it is them who allow quality improvements to occur in an organisation. Sometimes it is important to address the manager’s beliefs and values, in order to support and nourish a new cultural reality represented by quality. The authors say that as quality moves from a process of inspections of finished products to a continuous process, which permeates all facets of the organisation, the importance of these to aspects, top management commitment and issues of organisational culture, cannot be underestimated. If one present quality management as a determinant of organisational change, many questions arise which address change theory, organisational behaviour and organisational research. One can say that the quality management paradigm easily fits within the bounds of organisational research and lends itself neatly to questions suited for theoretical exploration and empirical testing. The outcome of this could greatly advance our knowledge and could provide practitioners with something of true value (Ibid.). Further one would define quality programmes as determinants of major organisational change, and in this way we can address some of the challenges the organisation can face when dealing with quality programmes, whereas three issues are mentioned below:

1. Quality as a strategic choice.

The goal of these programmes is to have a positive impact in the areas so designated for improvement and they are implemented in many different forms – in terms of process, product and customer satisfaction. The decision of quality implementation has moved from the quality assurance level of inspections into the boardroom of top management and executives, who seek to integrate quality into the strategic game plan of the organisation and in this matter it is important to consider the organisational context in which quality management decisions are being made (Alamaraz, 1994). Further definition on strategy will be described in section 3.4.2.

2. The team concept.

The Total Quality Programme (TQM) in U.S. organisations, can be described as frame breaking change, because quality facilitates a move from the more traditional, individualistic structure of American organisations to one in which emphasis is placed on teamwork.

However, to achieve this level of culture change needed by TQM is not an easy and overnight process, and needs to be planned and carefully implemented. Several authors points out the systemic orientation of quality programmes, arguing for the need to align performance management systems with the team-based philosophy of quality programmes and also a special technique, namely self-managed work teams, where they discuss the benefits ( and problems) which may result from these choices (Alamaraz, 1994).

3. Implementation of Quality programmes.

One can say that implementation refers to the front-end effort to operationalise some aspects of quality, where this could be in terms of the product or service itself, the process of creating such a product or service, or even the perception customers have regarding the product and or services. The implementation of such quality programme focused on any of these dimensions may be short term and immediate and such efforts can easily be measured and recorded. A former study, made by Steven Sommer and Deryl Merritt, presents an empirical study of TQM in health care and this study is indicative of the professional’s empirical research that quality programmes may produce, and shows the value of TQM possible even in the short term (Almaraz, 1994).

From these lines, mentioned above, we know that the issue of quality exists in most

organisations in some degree and the decision to implement a quality programme has become a necessity for many organisations and firms. In relation to this drive or necessity, the way in which the top management chooses to support such a new programme will determine its ultimate success. The issue of quality management and change place quality management in the realm of organisation development, and even within organisational behaviour (Ibid.).

Development and adaption of a new reality implies implementation skills and management of new actuality politics and structure. This is part of the core in the change management discipline and formulations of new goals, acknowledgement of actual state / condition and plans for how one can achieve the new and wanted reality are important aspects in this process. One can use the change as a tool for redefining and implementation of the new reality and the main task for the management is to realize new intensions for the future and implementation of new ideas in the organisations (Hennestad, Revang, & Strønen, 2006).

One of the main points emphasized by Hennestad, Revang og Strønens is the inadequate reliance on implementation in practical “good” executed change management. The authors implies that many good change projects begins with good intensions and lustily courage, but often fail when this is not followed–up in a correct way after the start-up. There are a lot ways on how to approach change, some changes can give large organisational changes, while others can be of a less size and character. Information regarding why and how one intend to change to reach the goal are things that needs to be clear early in the process and should be valid in every change situation. Information and communication to all affected / involved members of the organisation, is a postulation if the process should go smoothly and efficiently. In most change processes it is usual to put up a time line for planning, execution / implementation and a finalization or closure, where this time limit is a hypothetically wanted scenario for the process. However, a few of all change processes begins and ends at a certain point in time and it can be difficult to visualize the entire process before it starts, which again emphasize for a competent management. The ability to predict, react and take action during the process plays a central role and can be defined as change competence (Hennestad, Revang, & Strønen, 2006).

3.3.2.1. Strategy

There is not a simple, easy and accepted definition of strategy and the practitioners uses the term in different manners and situations. Some include goals into the definition of strategy, while others separate strategy and goals, and further one will try to explain what strategy is, more than making a correct definition of it (G.Roos, G. Von Krogh, J. Roos & L. Fernström,

2007). In normal terms, one can say that a strategy is a continuous line of planned actions, planned and executed to reach a certain goal. The strategy is always made on advance and is often documented in a plan. Different tools and framework have been used during the last years to help understand the development of strategy and how it affects the daily operations of the organisations. Henry Mintzberg is one of the most known researchers within this area, and he emphasizes strategy not just as a plan, but also as a continuous process. He means that just to focus on the plan can mislead the organisation and give a wrong picture of the total situation (Ibid.). Mintzberg has developed a framework which is called the five P`s within strategic theory and includes:

 Plan

 Ploy

 Pattern

 Position

 Perspective

One can also look at strategy as generic approaches, whereas we have four very different ones to consider further on. These four approaches have different perceptions on what strategy is, what it contains and predicts, together with implications for practical management (Whittigton, 2002). The classic and traditional approach represents a rational, objective and sequential approach, predicted as a universal norm. It seek to maximize profit and focus on internal planning, the process is analytic, the main influence is economic and / or military systems and it has its origin from the 1960`s. Both the evolutionary and processual approach are more sceptic and doubt the strategists’ abilities to control and manage the strategy effectively in an rational and hierarchical way. According to the evolutionists changes in the environment are too fast and unpredictable, so that the strategy is to survive and try to have every possibilities open. The approach appeared in the 1980`s and focus on the external marked with a Darwinistic process and where it has its influence from economy and biology.

The processual approach one can find in the opposite end, whereas they seek a patient strategy with incremental adaption and maintenance of core competencies. They focus on internal politics and knowledge, the process consists of negotiation and learning and their main source of influence is psychology. The last approach is the system theoretical perspective which has more relativistic perceptions where they mean that the strategies goals

and terms depends on the social systems characteristics. They focus on the external society, whereas the process is social, the main source of influence is sociology and it has its origin from the 1990`s (ibid.). From these approaches one can better understand the different choices countries and cultures have made, when considering business strategy. The different contradictions, such as the capitalistic America and the communistic Middle East can contribute to a wider understanding of the different structures in marked economies and their several connections to the rest of the society. Both success and failure, for example for the Asian countries have made us aware of the different social structures that are the foundation of their business systems and strategies. Even in the Western countries, with the privatization, different approaches has made organisations compete more with each other, while they are being driven by social and economic motives and also dependent upon resources outside the marked. The profit maximizing entrepreneurs and high-competition markets are not the only thing the strategists need to handle and struggle with, whereas a strong and competitive strategy in complex environments demands a system theoretical sensitivity for the magnitude and diversity in today’s economic practice (Ibid.).

In this section I have looked at Total Quality management (TQM) as a way of making and implementing change, where this implementation seek to help the organisation be more competitive, and that the quality is maintained and increased through different units or teams on different levels of the organisation. Resistance to change and the institutionalization of quality concepts, and top management commitment are the key determinants for success, and different authors emphasize for more research related to the relationship between quality management programmes, and organisational behaviour and change. The reason for this enthusiasm for the quality management programme is the lack of research and interest within the behavioural side of the quality aspect. There are several definitions of quality that are being used, but the question is whether we can make a causal relationship between quality management and organisational culture? This discussion of quality management in the context of organisational change theory leads us to TQM, which is a management process directed to establish organized continuous process improvement activities, involving everyone in an organisation in a totally integrated effort towards improving performance at every level.

This is a large change, and with the complexity of both the today`s organisations and its environments, this is not something that comes easily. We therefore seek to find quality as a strategic choice, as a part of a team concept and where implementation of quality programmes may foster both short and long term results (Ibid.). If one should further link the TQM to the